Supreme Court orders inquiry into Vikas Dubey encounter - Court appalled at the failure of the system, asks UP govt to provide details of trial court orders granting relief to gangster

STF and Forensic teams re-enact the events leading to the encounter of slain gangster Vikas Dubey, as part of ongoing investigation of the case in Kanpur district on Saturday. PTI

R. Balaji   |   TT   |   New Delhi   |   21.07.20  :  The Supreme Court on Friday decided on a judicial inquiry into Uttar Pradesh police’s killing of Vikas Dubey but declared itself “appalled” that a gangster accused in more than 65 serious criminal cases had repeatedly been granted bail in the lower courts.

The serial bails to Vikas indicated that the “system was at stake” and reflected the “failure of the system”, a bench headed by Chief Justice S.A. Bobde said. The bench, which included Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, asked the state government to place before it the details of the trial court orders granting relief to Vikas in various cases.

Vikas, whose gang had massacred eight policemen in a Kanpur village on July 3, was shot by his police escorts on July 10 a day after his arrest, amid suspicions of a “fake encounter”.

Multiple sources have said Vikas had deep nexuses within the police and across political parties. Politicians from the BJP, Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party had accompanied him when he surrendered in court after being accused of killing a BJP leader at a police station in 2001. He was acquitted after one police witness after another turned hostile in court.

“We are appalled that such a person with so many cases was released on bail and he eventually did this. Give us an accurate report of all the orders,” Justice Bobde told solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government.

“This shows the failure of the system. It is not only one incident that is at stake. What is at stake is the whole system.”

‘Encounter’ probe

The bench was dealing with three public interest pleas, including one from the People’s Union of Civil Liberties, challenging the “encounter” killings of Vikas and five alleged gang members.

The court asked the state government to suggest the name of a retired Supreme Court judge and a retired state IPS officer who would probe the “encounter” killings along with the July 3 ambush of the police team.

Senior officers have acknowledged that one or more moles had warned Vikas of the impending police raid, allowing him to ambush the cops.

The court said it would include in the judicial commission a former Allahabad High Court judge whom the state had already appointed to probe the “encounter” killings.

Telangana parallel

When a counsel for a petitioner compared the Vikas “encounter” with Telangana police’s killing of four men accused of gang-raping and murdering a veterinarian in Hyderabad last December, Justice Bobde remarked there was a difference between the two. “The rapists were completely unarmed in the Telanagana encounter,” he said.

According to the Uttar Pradesh police, Vikas had snatched a policeman’s gun after a road accident involving the vehicle in which he was being ferried, and fired before trying to escape.

Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the state police chief, argued: “Even policemen have fundamental rights. Can police be accused of excessive force when it is engaged in a live encounter with a dreaded criminal? Dubey slaughtered cops. We can’t demoralise the police force.”

Justice Bobde countered: “Strengthen the rule of law and the police force won’t ever be demoralised.”

Responding to PUCL counsel Sanjay Parekh’s submission that the Uttar Pradesh chief minister and his deputy had justified the “encounter”, Justice Bobde asked Mehta to “look into the statements” by the duo.

“If they have made certain statements and then something has followed, you should look into this,” the Chief Justice said.

It was not clear whether the deputy chief minister under the scanner was K.C. Maurya or Dinesh Sharma, nor what was said.

The court pulled up an advocate representing a petitioner for saying the state government should not be allowed to choose the members of the judicial commission.

“Are you saying a former SC judge and HC judge are state-sponsored?” an annoyed Chief Justice asked.

“I’m not saying that,” the lawyer replied.

“That’s what you are implying. This attitude of slinging mud at all must stop some time,” Justice Bobde said.

The next hearing is on July 29.